Valve: Modern Shooters "Pander" to Casual Gamers

[psicat]

Wow! More pretentious bullshit from Valve.

 

[UNHchabo]

But here's the thing: iron-sights aren't mandatory in shooters. You can play through Call Of Duty as if it's an old-school arcadey shooter, aiming from the hip and nary touching the iron sights. There's nothing forcing you to use iron-sights except yourself.

That was partly my point. Just because iron-sights are in a game, it doesn't mean you must use them. Like I pointed out, they simply allow for two divergent styles of play: the old-school run-and-gun, shoot-from-the-hip approach, and the newer aim-down-the-barrel approach. Each has it's perks and it's flaws, and neither is out-and-out better than the other.

I personally think that adding more choice of playstyles is very rarely a bad thing in games. A shooter that allowes you to choose between iron-sights and aiming from the hip is, to me, a far better shooter than one which forces everyone to shoot from the hip. If you think aiming from the hip is more fun than aiming down the barrel, then use that as your playstyle. Prove to the iron-sighters that you can take them down from 20 feet without sighting down the barrel, Most shooters still allow for that sort of gameplay.

And lastly, I think that every once in a while, a gameplay mechanic comes along which, once implemented, becomes a standard for the genre. The ability to move the view up and down as well as side to side. The ability to reload a gun without emptying a clip first. The ability to use a sniper scope. The ability to have grenades mapped to a separate button. All these things simply [i[work[/i] and have been implemented in practically every shooter since their inception. I'd put iron sights into the same category. It's a gameplay mechanic that adapts something fundamental about real-life guns into the videogame format. It allows players to choose where to put their bullets, as opposed to relying on the computer's random spread. But it also allows players to still fire from the hip, thereby still allowing arcadey gameplay.

At this point, all I can ask is what do you lose by adding iron-sights? You keep all the benefits and fun of previous shooters, while allowing a new gameplay style. What exactly is lost by allowing people to sight down the barrel?

If a game adds iron sights, what we lose is gameplay speed. As you said, you can choose to shoot from the hip, but that means you lose accuracy in every game I've seen that gives you the choice.

I don't want that from Counter-strike; we already have plenty of games that give you the choice between shooting accurately and moving quickly. Why can't Counter-strike be the one exception that lets you do both?

 

[Zanaxal]

WoW this guy actually seems to have a good grasp of why multi-player fps are so shitty atm good on him.

Good that valve is doing something useful for a change, continuing undoubtedly the biggest competition fps franchise while not caving into the modern era of silly game mechanics.

 

[UNHchabo]

You are both right and wrong. I used to play counter strike a lot several years ago however I have never played source. I stopped playing for a few reasons but one of them was because pretty much every single game came down to who is better at hide and seek.

That's only true if you're playing against campers. I can assure you that there's much more skill involved than you think.

 

[-Samurai-]

If a game adds iron sights, what we lose is gameplay speed. As you said, you can choose to shoot from the hip, but that means you lose accuracy in every game I've seen that gives you the choice.

I don't want that from Counter-strike; we already have plenty of games that give you the choice between shooting accurately and moving quickly. Why can't Counter-strike be the one exception that lets you do both?

Gameplay speed? After the first 10 seconds of a CS or CSS match, it's all turtle mode from there.

Everyone rushes around in the beginning, but then they start to walk to avoid making noise, and to increase their accuracy. What does it matter if you're walking slowly while using iron sights? You're walking slowly anyway. And they'd both increase accuracy.

It's just a different view that accomplishes the exact same thing.

 

[vivalahelvig]

Hot damn, i can't wait! I loved 1.6, CSS, and i'm going to play the hell out of this one!

I hope they added some nice new guns, which includes shotguns and submachine guns!

 

[RA92]

I read that and hear "Valve knows their game won't sell or stand out - decides to make bullshit comment about modern shooters so nostalgic idiots will defend it aqgainst all criticism and buy it en masse"

Tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

Call me a 'nostalgic idiot', but I want a bit of mobility while shooting. Movement is restricted with your sights up which means my ability to dodge, run, circle strafe and jump while shooting is limited as well. And dear lord, every FPS needs to <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.284431-Poll-Does-this-trend-in-new-FPS-games-annoy-you#11200235>stick a gun up my nose just so that people can get their iron-sights up fast.

Not every FPS needs iron-sights.

In case you hasn't noticed, the only game on the market, in existence, that actually stops you shooting unless you've zoomed, is Team Fortress 2, with the Sniper. Shooting blindly from the hip is in virtually every FPS on the market, just its inferior to actually, you know, aiming.

I fail to see how allowing a person to run, dodge and jump without a penalty to aiming is somehow "non casual". Taking away penalties sounds like the definition of making the experience more casual.

No, iron sights have basically dumbed down twitched-based FPS gameplay. Whereas shooting in the past involved simultaneous shooting and dodging/circle strafing/bunny hopping, these days iron sights mean whenever two players meet they just stand in front of each other and take about 4 seconds to get their sights up and kill each other. Kids today can barely keep up with me on UT, and CoD honestly feels lethargic. Slowing things down makes it easier, and thus the 'casual' mark.

And it's hilarious how people say iron sights add 'tactical depth'. There is no choice when you have an encounter with another player but to get your sights up. Until and unless you're at close range with your shotgun, sacrificing aim for speed makes no sense since the other guy can move his sight faster than you can move, with added accuracy.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

"this development won't be welcomed by those who enjoy the odd quick, pandering spell of gameplay before they leave the house."

Oh well. (And its Counter-Strike, this isn't exactly an abnormal development for the series.)

I can name two games from this year right off the top of my head (Crysis 2 and DA2) who were decidedly average, because they tried to spread their legs to as wide an audience as possible.

There is a limit to the range of appeal any given game can have, and that's fine, because not everyone likes or wants the same bloody thing.

And I hope you're paying attention, Hitman: Absolution lead designers.

Damn straight. Regardless, I'm glad SOMEONE is keeping the core gameplay that made the predecessor great. I'm getting this game first chance I get, as I sadly missed out on the earlier CS games...
Edit:

"We don't say, Well we need iron sights because everyone else has iron sights," Magal continued. "If they could figure out a way for them to make sense, we'd add them, but right now we think iron sights just make people move slower because they'll be afraid to put their gun down."

What.

No you idiot. I use iron sights because I want to put the bullets where I want it to go. Not in an area where they are probably going to be.

Im firing a rifle not a shotgun with big pellets. That only fire the pellets one at a time.

As for moving slower?

Uh that's is called toggling the iron sights. DURR HURR HURRR.

Sigh.

Again another developer trying to fix what isn't broken.

Seems like you've missed most shooters up until the "COD revolution." Oh boy, you're missing out on so much. I pity you.

 

[Still Life]

I fail to see how allowing a person to run, dodge and jump without a penalty to aiming is somehow "non casual". Taking away penalties sounds like the definition of making the experience more casual.

In the context of CS, there are ample movement penalties for weapons. It's a pretty unforgiving game and called 'hardcore' for a reason.

 

[thirion1850]

I read that and hear "Valve knows their game won't sell or stand out - decides to make bullshit comment about modern shooters so nostalgic idiots will defend it aqgainst all criticism and buy it en masse"

Tell me I'm wrong.

You clearly are, as CS is one of the FPS genre's and even gaming in general hallmark series. No matter what you say, no matter how much CoD, BF or anyone else bitches, it's part its history and will sell in truckloads regardless.

Unreal, 1.6, DoD, TFC, ect. These things stood the test of time as people play and refer to them.

Edit: Ah, might as well add Quake 3.

 

[wax88]

to valve:

i like you, i really do, but because i like you, i have to call you out on this. The whole bitching about iron sight thing- that's not cool. I've always known you as a company that proves it point, not by bitching- leave that for EA's marketting department, but by showing the product and go:" see? that's teh way to do it".

Also, how is this game, other than a visual, different from CS:S, heck it's using the same engine, and looks like the mechanics are exactly the same. Game modes may be changed but mods of CS:S also do that.

Don't get me wrong, I liked CS back in the early 2000s. But ever since the first Call of Duty introduced iron sight aiming, i fell in love with it. People could no longer go around spraying from the hip. Granted the pace was slowed down, more deliberate, that's how i prefer it. ( also, means that players have to practice greater caution as weapons become more accurate and deadly, and movement makes you vulnerable.)

Iron sight aiming, in my opinion, brings about better realism, and balance more importantly, since, now there is a tactical consideration of mobility vs acccuracy. No more ridiculous people bunny hopping around the maps spraying bullets-yes Iron sight haters-do you still rmb the bunny hoppers?- i haven't.

COD bashing has become popular and im afraid, Valve, that what ur doing here is pandering to that crowd. And truth be told, no-iron-sight is actually...more "casual" if you want to make that kind of distinction. Someone already mentioned it earlier, so i wont watse your time here.

On a final note: no i do not want YET ANOTHER CS, same as i couldn't care less for the next COD. Many have said it and i shall say it again. Stop this CS malarkey, really, and focus on HL:3. If i wanted a pseudo tactical setting shooter i'll play COD4(usually on hardcore mode). If i want a non-realistic settling with no iron sights, i'll play TF2. CS, in my opinion, is a thing of the past, from an era when no one thought of or knew how to program iron-sight aiming. Iron-sight aiming is NOT a bad thing: it's merely a design choice, whetehr it's bad is dependent on how you choose to incoporate it. I've yet to experience a game in which i really dislike, from you. Don't make this the first.

yours sincerely,
A fan

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Half life 3? correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked they still have yet to finish HL:2 E:3.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

And I hope you're paying attention, Hitman: Absolution lead designers.

I sure as hell hope they don't mess what's already a pretty good formula up.

But you know they will.

OT: So basically they aren't changing anything? I don't know why they need to offhandedly hint that it's going to be the same thing as Source.

That's what the fans of the series want.

 

[emeraldrafael]

So games are casual, at least we actually get to SEE these games valve *cough*halflife2episode3*cough*

I dont see where valve gets to think its all high and mighty and have this ego complex.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Apparently their games where massively, stunningly innovative. (I never saw it or thought so, but YMMV) I kinda put them in with blizzard a lot of fan wank for being innovative simply by aping things that were done and simply didn't get the bank they did.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Never heard of this guy before, was he brought on for G:O? It'd make sense, this kind of comment is pretty atypical for Valve. But anyway, I've never had any time for Counter strike, never liked it one bit. Dunno why, not against the idea of it, I like games without iron sights, I love playing the sniper in tf2... But counter strike really rubbed me the wrong way. Might have been the community, to be fair.

 

[Versuvius]

Spoiler: considering most of today's FPSs, I find this appropriate

I think you will find that black line is actually Dwarf Fortress and i would love to see a 12 year old mic-screeching CoD kiddy try and "pwn" that.

I am being overly unfair but i have a nice little hot coal of hatred for those high pitched little shits.

As for the actual point, i kinda agree shooters (and most games for that matter) are just being degenerated into cash generating whores with flashy graphics for the masses who have touched a controller for over ten seconds and decide they are a 'gamer'. Goddamnit i want my nerd title back!